Comments on: Feingold Asks Sotomayor about Executive Power

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:36:09 +0000

Link with Father Vitale and his response to the deaths dur to drones
http://www.democracynow.org/20.....testing_us

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:30:14 +0000

TThe accumulative numbers of innocent people being slaughtered by those drones is criminal. Do most Americans care? Don’t think so

Father Vitale would be a great guest here at FDL to talk about his activism in response to the innocent deaths due to our drones.

Peace Activists Arrested After Protesting US Drones in Nevada
Drones-nevada-web

US drone bombings have reportedly killed 687 Pakistani civilians since 2006. During that time, US Predator drones carried out sixty strikes inside Pakistan, but hit just ten of their actual targets. Last week, a group of peace activists last week staged the first major act of civil disobedience against the drone attacks in the United States. Fourteen people were arrested outside the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, where Air Force personnel pilot the unmanned drones used in Pakistan. We speak with longtime California peace activist Father Louis Vitale, who was among those arrested, and with Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist. [includes rush transcript]

Father
_protesting_us”>http://www.democracynow.org/20…..testing_us

Whitehouse makes me have a bit of hope. Have the sense that he really means what he says. “no one is above the law” Hoping (pushing as much as I can) that Holder actually for once in his life means what he has repeatedly said “no one is above the law”
————————————————————————–

Whiteshouse seems to understand that if they really make sincere efforts based on the law and hold these Bush administration thugs accountable our nation will be far better off. The world will be far better off. They just might be able to put those scales back in hand of Lady Justice.

Hope you looked at that clip of Isikoff and Lawrence O’Donnel. Isikoff really demonstrated just what a weenie he is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:59:04 +0000

I’ve been hoping for someone to ask the same question. When might a judge decide to ignore precedent and interpret the law in a new light?

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:37:08 +0000

Thanks for your assessment. But doesn’t FISA define what’s reasonable to search? And isn’t the critical thing that al-Haramain was NOT searched as the result of a FISA warrant, but during a blind data mining process? In other words, perhaps it’s reasonable to search suspected terrorists, but were al-Haramain’s communications searched because they were suspected terrorists, or because their communications were vacuumed up along with countless others? Am I misremembering the details?

Bob in HI

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:40:10 +0000

There are always a lot of areas to question a nominee about. In light of the Conservatives we might want to know what she thinks about challenging precedent. But, that’s just something from today. I trust in the committee’s approach to using questions on a broad range of issues to suss out the nominee’s depth of knowledge and ability to communicate under some pressure.

It’s particularly hard to question a nominee about how they would behave on the Supreme Court. Nobody really knows the answer and no lower court can overturn precedents. But they try.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:20:05 +0000

Korematsu was 65 years ago. As you point out even a radical conservative justice like Roberts recognized it was a bad decision. I mean this is like Sotomayor saying she disagreed with the Dred Scott decision. Korematsu is a softball question.

Her response as you note: “In the end, the Constitution, by its terms, protects certain individual rights. That protection is often fact-specific. Many of its terms are very broad.” is crap. The Constitution is not that long a document. Most of its terms can be construed as broad. It is Sotomayor’s leading with fact-specific, that’s these rights are less than meets the eye that is so disappointing. It is a question of emphasis but it is a very telling emphasis.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:51:01 +0000

The mans a very very consistent civil libertarian. I’m very happy to have his consistency over the political crap of about 85 other Senators.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:47:53 +0000

FWIW

Whitehouse–who is on SSCI and who I trust–said that he’s a lot more concerned about torture.

So am I.

I think Congress blew a hissy because they could, and because they’re trying to force Obama to negotiate on briefings and etc. And because Cheney used his whole “hide the pokey in JSOC, not CIA” to avoid briefings. It was assassinations, it was hand to hand. But it frankly is less damaging than the drone strikes taking out weddings.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:45:13 +0000

Great comment–thanks.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:42:59 +0000

The two most likely cases Sotomayor will review on warrantless wiretapping are al-Haramain and (if it survives that far) EFF.

If I had to guess, she might be 60% ruling against al-Haramain, but 60% for EFF. In other words, the suggestion that it’s all about reasonable search, I immediately thought she was saying it’s reasonable to search suspected terrorists, regardless of FISA.

I hope I’m wrong.